Innovus ex Newbium

[LostallatoncE]

First of all, let me apologize if I am somehow transgressing, but I have heeded the advice and warnings of the Creators of this forum and spent all night checking these forums before posting. I think I started around 2 am and left for work at 2pm. Now I have had some time to mull it over and I’ll do my best to keep this extremely general. You must understand that there is as much to decrypt in the posting rituals here as there is in the show, which leads me to my premise – that the abundance and disparity of theories on this forum, and the near suspicion with which old posters regard “newbie”-ism, illustrates that this show does nothing better than bring out that good old-fashioned fanatic dogmatism in us.

Yes, this isn’t news – many posters who could not overcome their differences, such as the ones early on who argued over the “why” versus the “how”, have been forced to whittle their contentions down to differences in their own personal values and not the values of Lost – how special! But what struck me is that few people have discussed this itself as a device in the show. Like the Lostaways, we devise our own little filters through which to interpret what we see. Like the Lostaways, some of us are privy to some observations while others see things entirely differently. Like the Lostaways, we as posters must allow for a Deus ex Machina in order for our island not to become stagnated with crippling old dogmas that get us nowhere. We think, however, that we are unlike the Lostaways because we can see everything if we want, and we can talk about it, and we can ask questions like “why” and “how” fearlessly because we are not stuck on an island. But in fact we create an island for ourselves in how we communicate about the show, attempt to live out what happens by questioning it down to the source (after all, we are at all times acutely aware of the existence of God the “Creators”), and as the result of our theories we are either much closer to understanding it or we are completely Lost in our theories and unable to see beyond them.

Of course people want to speculate about whether or Locke is good or evil, white or black – Locke himself set that train of thought in motion when he talked to Walt about Backgammon. Of course people want to speculate about atonement – many characters have faced their “past lives” and transcended them. But someone wisely invoked Aronofski’s “Pi” where the mentor warns against speculative number theory because numbers are everywhere, aching to be interpreted. Of course there are numerologists, cosmologists, and psychologists among us – evidence for any theory is exploding on the screen at all times, just like it is in the world (you know the one) outside our TV sets, outside this forum, outside our churches and schools. That’s right, this is the secular laity theory – we create our own luck.

So maybe instead of thinking about which theories best encapsulate the meaning of the show, we should consider how we and the characters are tempted into various dogmas. Some people said there was a school of light and a school of dark, one for the beach and one for the caves. Fine, but why not a school of hope and a school of resolve? Why not a school that digs the extra-mundane (Heaven, salvation, rescue, the conspicuous life) and one into the super-mundane (not Hell, but rather the earth, Samsara, introspection, the here-and-now). Hey “High-Ground vs. Low-Ground” camp: don’t the salvation people respond to the tower, while internalists investigate the hatch? How do fading loyalties to some dogmas give way to new ones?

Some of us are so wild about answers, maybe we should be looking for more questions. Most obvious, at the core of many threads: If you take the image of man awakening in a wilderness, what are his questions? In which direction does he look for answers to the unknown? As easy as it is for most people to identify with the obvious choice, I think many of us agree it is not necessarily “up”. Lots of us thought so for a while … but then nothing came from “up there”, so then we explored the “out there” of radio signals, the “greater than I” of mystery creatures, the “greater of I” of previous lives, and the “seeded within” of destiny. What is really interesting and oddly un-dogmatic of us is that it seems we (unlike most of us in our real lives), are able to dabble in and accept speculation on almost any of these crazy theories. Now we’re on to Fibonacci Spirals, Connect Four matrices, Chaos Theory, and Disco Hatches. Like the Lostaways, we are born onto a clean slate as it were, with not a lot of praying and not a lot of humming going on – just the evidence around us – and look where it’s gotten us already.

Then there are those of us who are really skeptical about some elements. People want to cry out “red herring” when things don’t seem to jibe with … with what? With what “the Creators” would really throw out there? Whose camp are you in? Are you down with the Numerologists, or are you down with the Creators? Now we have this hatch, and we have this island-reality-oriented character Locke. Is he transgressing like we do with the numbers? Is he looking for the “out there” where he is not supposed to – in there? Is he tuned in to the “wrong” force – messages from the sky instead of messages from the deep? Is he working for the aliens or not? Is Charlie reincarnated into a religion of living sacrifice and self-idolatry, or is he born again into the church of Locke and on his way to a sweet new day? Will the church of the Healing Hand bring Jack and Sawyer together for fatalism and brotherhood? Will Michael christen his vessel and set out for “Lost at Sea”, only to find out it’s really, well … detached out there? Will Hurley finally put the headphones down and learn some French songs? Has Claire gone too deep, lost faith, fallen for Charlie’s parlor tricks, flung off the robes of rescue and chased false security to a dead end in the womb of the unknown? Will a stranger raise the child with Claire’s own hands? Will the posters in this forum fall for a red herring and regress to the “who’s your favorite character, dude” theory?

Hey veteran poster, don’t give the Creators any crazy ideas – they might put them in the show. Hey newbie, we stopped thinking about that crap months ago. Do we, the castaways on this forum, work together toward our salvation, or do we drive ourselves further from the truth within?

[jaystao]

I'm...... impressed. So who's your favorite character, dude?

Seriously, LostallatoncE welcome to the board. You bring up some interesting analysis in regards to the parallels between the forum and the LOST particulars. Almost like a shadow/animus that slowly involves itself with the originating body until the two are one. That is to say, the show influences us, we influence the show and vice versa as we posters also influence one another. Spiraling beyond until we all are perhaps LOST. But at least we've all at last found each other. What joy! Perhaps we can all go bowling some time?

I particularly like your analogies of the symbolic relations/references in the show, I look forward to reading your further posts.

[LostInWilderness]

Does that mean we can time travel?

[jaystao]

Only to go bowling....

[ThatHippieKid]

*blinks* I think that confused me...

[mystjade]

*blinks* I think that confused me...

Me Too

[athywithak]

Good thoughts to think about, thanks.

[LoStMyMiNd]

Very well articulated and written. I like the part about a stranger raising Claire's baby with Claire's own hands. Very thought provoking

[gscaleta]

nice first post i think. You are now on the list of posters that make my head hurt. Can you put that in simple terms with simple words so people like me can get it?? Thanks and welcome to the board.

[Chance Gardener]

A post well played. Generalizes and trivializes all the theories being discussed, dismissed, debated, and debunked. Taunts and teases all at the same time. Informs and perhaps even enlightens while gently twisting in the knife. The best example of "its only a TV show, get a life people" I may have ever read.


I like it.




I like to watch

[morbius47]

so what is the theory again?

[Gambit980]

I wish I could disagree with you so I could read more. Excellent post. Definitely food for thought.

[photosbydeb18]

I wish I could disagree with you so I could read more. Excellent post. Definitely food for thought.
-Gambit980

ditto! this is a great read! :)

[morbius47]

yeah yeah - it reads well

now what's the freaking theory?!?

[JacksGirlfriend]

Do we, the castaways on this forum, work together toward our salvation, or do we drive ourselves further from the truth within?

We're working on it.

So - are you my long lost twin?

[gscaleta]

maybe we are too just make a theory from the theory? I don't even understand the damn subject. What is innovus? Egyptian god?

[JacksGirlfriend]

I think it boils down to this, GS. He/she wants to know why some of us are on the beach and some are in the caves when we should be working toward a common goal.

[sawyerhasbestlines]

Basement dwellers,

Sometimes in the spirit of analyzing, there is an occasional post analyzing and critiqueing the overall theories itself, the individual theorists and the belief camps they fall into, the dynamics between the show and the board, etc. Think of it as an observation, one step removed, an overall general assessment of the theories board. It's more of a theory on theories.

------------

Nice first post.

Regarding dogma and camps people fall into, here's my take:

Some people will unconsciously be drawn to certain types of theories simply because they mesh well with their own personal belief system and set values, and they will project these onto the show. So someone very religious therefore, are going to naturally be drawn to all the religious iconongraphy and want to expound upon that. That will be their niche. On the otherhand, so will people who know nothing about that, but are open to learning, or are open minded in general.

There is also a lot of dry humor here disguised as a serious theory, that people don't recognize. I've posted a few myself when things get a little dull.

Which leads to there is also a false assumption that when someone posts a theory, they wholeheartedly embrace, endorse, and endlessly stand behind it and no other. Some people do, some don't. I don't. Too rigid, for me. (That's why I can post about chaos theory and Locke wearing a 'fro and hangin with Disco Stue at the same time.)

Some of us also discover a niche that's not too crowded, and enjoy giving a voice to a particular viewpoint whether in our personal belief system we stand behind it or not: the psychological, the political, the academic, pseudo science, religious, symbolic, etc. We do this because we enjoy discussion.

The whacky theories are worth putting out there because it provides a wider spectrum for people to safely explore their personal value system or adjust it. For example, the genetics discussions have the potential for an individual to identify the line of the personal ethics. Is it drawn at in vitro fertilization, is the line drawn at research for genetic testing only for severely ill, is it drawn at animal research is ok, but not human research, to the other end: cloning. Where do we draw our line, and how far out of our box, are we capable of discussing a subject if it strays too far from our own ethics. I could go on, and on. The whacky theories also function as a counter point to the safe, cautious, and sometimes dull theories. That kind of thinking is also an exercise in creativity. As true in life, creativity is not for everyone.

[azteclady]

SHBL, I thought it was a bit more like mocking the entire forum for spending so much time here, analyzing something that is in reality extremely trivial.



Got a question/problem/complaint? Read the entire Welcome forum first, then PM me.

[Chance Gardener]

I think its more a ribbing on the theorists than a theory on theories.

But it's still a good post.




I like to watch

[morbius47]

Well yeah alady, but it sounds so pretty.

(what's the freaking theory?)

[gscaleta]

Sometimes in the spirit of analyzing, there is an occasional post analyzing and critiqueing the overall theories itself, the individual theorists and the belief camps they fall into, the dynamics between the show and the board, etc. Think of it as an observation, one step removed, an overall general assessment of the theories board. It's more of a theory on theories.

huh? I know this thread is all about nothing except confusion?

[sawyerhasbestlines]

huh?

See Aztec Lady's and Chance's post.

[JacksGirlfriend]

SHBL: It's a post about everything and nothing specific. I know because I invented them. Believe me, everyone recognizes it. They've been reading posts like this for 6 months with my name attached. I am very good at starting and summing up, but I am very reluctant to engage in the actual "work" involved in keeping a theory or idea going. Why? Because it takes effort. Throwing words down on a page comes easy for me and obviously for Lostallatonce as well.

The funny thing is - after reading this post - I think I need to learn to be less vague. And I think I need more substance.

Lostallatonce (you need a nickname): All in all it was an excellent first post and I'm sure very daunting for some, but as one rambling bullshitter to another, I'm pretty sure I could match you thought for thought, if not word for word. I see myself here and though it sounds impressive, I think the two of us should make a commitment to take that plunge and strive for substance over flash.

I'm game if you are.

[cccourt]

"What's the rub, tell me what's the rub... I only want to know!"
Jesus Christ Superstar, 1973

Funny. Real funny. We, the readers and posters, are not blank slates. We could be a philosopher or a clerk. That doesn't matter...we come in with some fixed notions. Nothing wrong with that.

Solution? This is an international board. Granted it is more a North American board since the show aired here first. Tossing ideas around which we KNOW...are familiar with...is as purist as it comes. As each of us tosses a thought...it is not given up as THE panacea to the show. It is mentioned as an offering...at the altar of LOST-TV for fans to masticate and spit out their thoughts.

Can't tell if you are criticizing or spoofing.

ccc

[cinderellabop]

Is this just a really fancy way of telling us that we're all full of crap and should stop over-analyzing?

[Hodgepodge]

First of all LostallatoncE, let me join the others in welcoming you to Lost-TV. May all your posts be as insightful as your first.

You know what I took away from this well thought out post? Maybe we're taking ourselves to serious. Maybe we should just sit back and enjoy Lost instead of trying to figure out every nuance.

[LostallatoncE]

Okay, let me clarify. First of all, I'm definitely not mocking anyone -- I said I don't want to transgress against this forum and I meant it. I read this forum because I like the ideas in it, and I wanted to see how others are dealing with these things. Am I rambling? Yes, a little, but I don't think that's out of place in this forum, and actually I do so intentionally because it reinforces my point that we can go anywhere with this. Not that that's my whole point.

Are we born into this show with a clean slate? Yes, I still think so. Because we willingly suspend disbelief, and because we presume that the Creators are all powerful and not bound to the precincts of the real world, we MUST allow ourselves to accept anything or else we have nothing. And I know that many have cited the Creators saying that nothing is in anyone’s head and all can be explained through science, but if somebody is having dreams that predict the future, we all have to accept it’s not science anymore. It may be something we go into the show believing, yes, but it’s not science. And with that clean slate, I think we are able to grapple with ideas we do not allow ourselves to grapple with in real life. Am I to presume that everyone on the UFO thread really believes in UFOs? And since we all believe in The Clapper, then why hasn’t anybody suggested that there’s a Clapper inside the hatch?

Regarding red herrings, if anyone was offended because I criticized calling “red herring” and thus burning (albeit politely) the witches, don’t worry because I’m on your side. No offense to the witches, because this is the point – we need to allow for all of the red herrings and assume that nothing is there without consideration of how we would interpret it and apply it to the greater unknown. Hell, if you looked at the screenshots of the plane interior, or if you have seen the mapquest of the Central African Republic, or if you ever wondered what the symbolic difference between Nerf and regulation footballs was, then you are in the same boat.

I was raised by secular humanists. I was never baptized, I never had to go to Sunday school. When I was in High School, my brother was in Godspell and I thought he did a damn good job – I was moved to tears. In college, I studied religion and it was fun not because I ever got closer to believing anything, but because I could call “red herring” and speculate about all this crazy far-fetched stuff that made people act in really interesting ways. I held these people in the highest respect, but I had to ask questions like, “where do heavenly parents come from?” and “why is sacrifice the fee for deserving?” When we watch the show and we start to think about all kinds of crazy things we don’t believe in, we are engaged in this.

For those who want me to lay down some more specific plan of action, I can say, “why not try to figure out what different mysterious locations on the island represent in terms of epistemology?” But is it helpful if I say I think the tower is tied to heavenly things, unverifiable faith, and rescue? That the hatch is the temptation to lose one’s self to the powers of the supermundane, the occult, the cult of the individual? After all, Locke is lost in that world. Is it helpful if I think that even civilization represents something -- a sort of spirit world to those who are on the island and to us? I don’t know if it’s helpful because it’s my system of belief on this show and I don’t want to be a missionary, as it were. Also, as posters have said (though I don’t know where they heard it, can I get a link, please?), the Creators have suggested that there are a variety of explanations.

What is significant to me is that some of us want to throw down and establish if one system of belief is good while another is evil. In this respect, I suppose cccourt has a point, because the reason I don’t get into the good and evil on the show is because I don’t believe in good and evil in real life. Is belief in good and evil a learned thing, or is it built into a clean slate? Maybe I’m making a mistake when I don’t buy into that interpretation. The real question is: do I think the Creators want me to think about it? Anyway, if this inspires more discussion, I’ll be pleased as hell. If anyone really cares whether I’m all flash and no stash, or if anyone wants to take me up on something in particular, then I guess I’m game, but there’s not a lot to argue about. I’d really just like to know if anyone else is thinking along the lines of epistemology, and where this has gotten them.

[Gambit980]

In you first post you said that we were not working as a group to lead to the final answer, the same way the castaways are. I wonder if you have taken into account the generosity of our moderators to allow discussions of almost any nature in regards to the show, as long as it is not a duplicate. Personally I feel whenever you have a group of people together sooner or later you will end up with a majority and a minority. The discourse of ideas allows for the majority to change. Noe I think I 'm rambling.

Here is a link to the interview with one of the creators of the show. Interview (http://p073.ezboard.com/flosttheunofficalforumfortheabcseriesfrm2.showMess age?topicID=2211.topic)

And I feel like dumb for asking this but could you define epistemology.

[JacksGirlfriend]

If anyone really cares whether I’m all flash and no stash, or if anyone wants to take me up on something in particular, then I guess I’m game, but there’s not a lot to argue about.

I didn't said I cared you were all flash; I said I recognized it for what is is. We are a lot alike that way. I'm hardly going to criticize your writing style when I do it all the time myself. As far as arguing, we enjoy it around here and once you state your opinion on one thing or another, I'd be happy to argue anything with you.

We're here analyzing, debating and arguing because we enjoy the show and we have fun being here with each other and sharing thoughts. If you're not interested in the exchange of ideas, or you think we're not working as a group to solve the mysteries, why are you here?

There are lots of differents ways we're approaching this show. Feel free to join in any discussion. We'd love to hear your take on one theory or all of them.

[drabauer]

I'm definitely interested in episemology, but I'm still not sure what yours is, LostallatoncE, other than "Let's take the writers at face value and deal with what they are showing us." But yes, you do identify the tower, et al. So you are suggesting that certain places and objects on the island are symbolic of the struggle between . . well here it gets a bit vague:
"the tower is tied to heavenly things, unverifiable faith, and rescue? . . /the hatch is the temptation to lose one’s self to the powers of the supermundane, the occult, the cult of the individual? " Each of these concepts cries out for context. And I would not harbor the fear that one stab at a hermeneutics of the island would brand you a "missionary" for one particular view or other.

As I tell my students, you can never be too specific! ;)

Gambit: epistemology=philosophical theory of knowledge, how is it we know what we know? How can we "know"?

hermeneutics: principles of interpretation (from the exegesis performed by 19th c. Biblical scholars)

[cccourt]

...and Gambit ain't no dummy.

I will defer to Lostall for definition. Mine is much too short. For some reason I have the notion he will want to elevate, pontificate, and elaborate on its definition.

Now then: we are the common man here. We have 12 year olds and 35 year olds...and ME. We have junior high students, attorneys, CEOs , and PhDs. We have people from salesman positions to administrative, students and grad students. Unless it is Pinnerman talking, most of us communicate with mundane terms and words. I do accept there are some who live and work in such lofty areas of their brains that they must pull out the esoteric vocabulary in order to communicate. Therefore, we welcome, with open arms. the addition to Lostall to our board and membership.

Here is the warning: if you want good replies to your ideas, talk down to us. Otherwise, you make some of our heads hurt. Specifically, Gscaleta's!! Ha, ha.


ccc

[imamiamigurl]

"The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity." - DICTIONARY.COM

[Lilyani Isthuggin]

And I feel like dumb for asking this but could you define epistemology.

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences of cognition, which developed from the information processing approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a human's capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.

[cccourt]

now miami...I was saving that...ha, ha.
ccc

[sawyerhasbestlines]

Well, this was fun.


cccourt, I loved your alter metaphor.

[jaystao]

I vaguely remember studying metaphysics at University. Something about a chicken and an egg and why we bother getting out of bed in the first place or something like that. An epistemological question falls under the category of a metaphysical question. A question about the nature of the question itself. Similar to Zen type thinking. A question about the nature of the question, or a philosophy on the nature of philosophy. There is the world, and then there is me thinking about the world and then there is me thinking about me thinking about the world, and the there is me thinking about..... I think I'll go back to bed, I've got some downloading to do tonight.

PS: SHBL, have you read Douglas Adam's "Dark Tea Time of The Gods?", in terms of your syncronicity idea its a great read and has some similarities to LOST. Anyway.....

[Chance Gardener]

You may not get to where you're going but you'll most likely wind up where you need to be.




I like to watch

[Black Dahlia]

Great. More questions.

JK, welcome to the forums, Lostallatonce



I'm definitely interested in episemology
I wonder if Jack is going to give Claire an episemology after giving birth to that big-headed baby. Charlie will thank him for it, and judging from his stature, will need all the help he can get.

[cccourt]

Black Dahlia: This is SO funny!!
ccc:rollin

[athywithak]

I also salute Black Dahlia - best joke, maybe all week.

[Gambit980]

You know I never knew Hollywood writers were Even interested in Philosophy until I read an interview between one of the walchowski brothers and a philosopher. In said interview they discuss epistemology. I still think it is rare the writers think along these lines when they write the show. I believe this show isn't tackling these issue. It may very well be worthwhile exercise in brain activity to evaluate in this manner, but I feel it is fleeting. I don't know whether the author would respond in this thread, I would really like for Lostallatonce thoughts on more concrete, things.

[Sarahs Monkey]

A little bird told me:
I don't trust anyone that takes six sentences with big words to say what I can in one sentence with little words.